Re: Aquatic Ape Theory

Howie Phantasmagoria (
Thu, 28 Apr 1994 18:02:26 GMT

Pondering with perfect aplomb, you penned:
>I tend to lump the AAH in with Creationism, the writings of Immaneul
>Velikofsky and Eric Von Danniekn (the last two names I have undoubtedly
>misspelled). They all have a common pattern. They are presented in
>popular literature and generally avoid presentations to an informed
>audience. When critiqued in any way they always fall back on the
>argument that "orthodox" science is prejudiced against them or that
>there is some issue of professional jealousy involved.

Excuse me butting my 2 cents in here, but it seems a bit unfair to
disparage theories simply because you lump them together. Creationism,
AAH, and pop culture writings simply provide a different frame of
reference than mainstream scientific thought. There is no reason
whatsoever that a person should not choose to believe one theory instead
of another. Just because our modern society relies so heavily on the
scientific method and accepted scientific thought doesn't mean that other
ideas should be less important. In the middle ages, Creationism and
supernatural thought held sway. All we've done with modern science is to
change the way we look at things. The world itself hasn't changed, and
so it is still necessary to take into account all possible theories until
they are conclusively disproven.